Case law

William P. Tavoulareas, Peter Tavoulareas v. Philip Piro. William P. Tavoulareas, Peter Tavoulareas v. The Washington Post Company, D/B/A the Washington Post, a Delaware Corporation

817 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 1987

The article suppressed important information favorable to the Tavoulareases. 392 In my view, this evidence establishes clearly and convincingly that the false statements and implications in the subject article were put forth … Quite clearly, the defamation analysis employed here is not new.

Heller v. District of Columbia

801 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

The experts’ reports adequately established the bases for the opinions they expressed in the reports and in their declarations. … July 21, 2015) ("[AJrguments not clearly raised in a party's opening brief are generally considered to be forfeit”).

Charles C. Rouse v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, Saint Elizabeths Hospital

373 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 4, 1967

The “no such treatment” language clearly was mere make-weight in support of his claim that his detention had become incarceration — unlawful because he had recovered and was allegedly entitled to release. … statement, having taken note of problems which had arisen under the commitment provisions of section 24-301, Senator Ervin pointed out that “The mandatory commitment law deprives the trial judge who may be the person best qualified

Middleton v. Dist. of Columbia

312 F. Supp. 3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

in the past and appeared to remain qualified for such programming. … s inappropriate placement from his issues with attendance; they are clearly linked.

Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Scott Bessent

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 2026

These Somos members are also likely to be able to establish causation and redressability for both claims. … Appellants say that, if address information could be disclosed under § 6103(i)(2), as the text clearly states, it could not be used in court because of § 6103(i)(4).

Cadbury Beverages v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 17, 1998

Matzan's conversation with Dennis about not turning to Graffius for assistance in obtaining a bonus clearly falls within this latter line of cases. … But in concluding that that fact immunizes the company from liability, petitioner reads the disjunctive out of Ohmite, and seemingly asserts the baffling proposition that the Board must always engage in Ohmite's balancing

Tallahassee Branch of the NAACP v. Federal Communications Commission

870 F.2d 704 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 1989

One of the problems is that most qualified applicants leave the market to pursue larger, more lucrative markets. … In addition, the cases cited by the FCC in its decision are clearly inapposite to the instant case.

United States v. Lawrence T. Day. United States of America v. Eric J. Sheffey

591 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1979

Written assertions are not immune from the hearsay rule, Fed.R.Evid. 801(a)(1). However, the information on the slip was not hearsay. … Berger, Evidence fl 801(c)[01], at 801-63 (1977): Rather than focusing on the technical question of whether a given statement is beyond the hearsay rule’s scope or whether it qualifies as [an] exception, it would be more

United States v. Archie W. Brawner

471 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 1972

The arresting officer testified that Brawner appeared normal, and did not appear to be drunk, that he spoke clearly, and had no odor of alcohol about him. … For the most part, where that opinion takes issue with the approach of the majority opinion the issue is reasonably clearly joined and refinement or elaboration would be in the service of rhetoric rather than clarity.

Attias v. Carefirst, Inc.

365 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 2019

It is well-established that the existence of a valid contract precludes a claim for unjust enrichment. See, e.g. , Harrington v. … Breach Litig. , 266 F.Supp.3d 1 , 40 (D.D.C. 2017), appeal filed No. 18-1182 (dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiffs failed to allege facts that would support waiver of sovereign immunity

Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal

720 F.2d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 1983

CRT, the Act envisions the need for copyright holders to qualify for distribution of the Fund. 675 F.2d at 380 . … (“It has been established that SIN does not own approximately 40% of the program”); JA 9440 (SIN’s definition of “primary market zone” was conceded to bear no relation to the definition established in FCC rules); JA 9358,

United States v. Gerardo Gonzalez-Valencia

133 F.4th 1072 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 2025

That review, while deferential, looks for “significant procedural error,” “clearly erroneous” factual findings, or a sentence that is substantively unreasonable. Id. … Novel legal issues generally do not give rise to plain errors, and Gonzalez-Valencia points to no violation of an established legal norm. V.

Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

673 F.2d 425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1982

From these clear and indubitable principles results the propriety of a negative, either absolute or qualified, in the Executive upon the acts of the legislative branches. … We are satisfied that the legislative history establishes that Congress would not have delegated authority to the President to establish salaries without the provision for the one-house veto. Id. at 1262.

N Amer Frght Car v. STB

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

STB Dec. 10; Langston Statement 13 (“The charts clearly show that since the storage policy was first adopted, the average time that private cars are left on BNSF’s tracks has decreased by over one full day for industrial … We believe, however, that the distinction the Board drew in construing subsection (B) applies equally to subsection (A), which uses similar language in its requirement that, to qualify as “transportation,” the storage facility

Mississippi v. Environmental Protection Agency

723 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 2013

Reasonable people might disagree with EPA’s interpretations of the scientific evidence, but any such  16 disagreements must come from those who are qualified to evaluate the science, not us. … “[T]here is,” EPA stated, “no bright line clearly directing the choice of level, and the choice of what is appropriate is clearly a public health policy judgment entrusted to the Administrator.” Id. at 16,482–83.

In Re Sealed Case

676 F.2d 793 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 23, 1982

The cases extending the Hickman *811 doctrine into the realm of privilege have each adopted its two-tiered structure — qualified protection for “fact” work product and more absolute protection for “opinion” work product. … Such testimony could not qualify as evidence; and to use it for impeachment or corroborative purposes would make the attorney much less an officer of the court and much more an ordinary witness.

Noble v. Sombrotto

525 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 16, 2008

Our precedents and the statutory text and structure establish a basic principle of judicial restraint in these cases. … Finally, for the reasons already explained, the payments in question also were not otherwise “manifestly unreasonable,” even assuming that formulation qualifies as a separate test for § 501 claims. Cf. Morrissey v.

Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2018

The district court’s findings that “La Michoacana” lacks distinctiveness—whether inherent or acquired—are not erroneous, let alone clearly so. … Because the district court did not clearly err in finding a lack of credible evidence of any injury, and Prolacto’s failure to establish injury is fatal to its claim, we need not consider additional arguments regarding materiality

National Organization for Women, New York City Chapter v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Intervenor. National Organization for Women v. Federal Communications Commission, National Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Intervenor

555 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 1977

This is not to say, of course, that the Commission could safely ignore in its ultimate determination about renewal a clearly relevant finding by an expert agency. … Rather the Commission must evaluate the finding carefully and fully in light of its own established standards.

True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 2016

Further, “[b]ecause § 7431 represents a waiver of sovereign immunity, it must be ‘strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.’” Snider v. … Their heavy burden requires that they establish cessation, not near cessation.